Conwell v. House

• Decision Date: 04 April 1882
• Citation: 11 N.W. 714,57 Iowa 754
• Parties: CONWELL v. HOUSE ET AL
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

11 N.W. 714

57 Iowa 754

CONWELL v. HOUSE ET AL

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

April 4, 1882

Appeal from Ringgold District Court.

ACTION in chancery. There was a decree in effect dismissing plaintiff's petition and granting the relief prayed for in a cross-bill filed by defendants. Plaintiff appeals.

AFFIRMED.

Askern Bros., for appellant.

Laughlin & Campbell, for appellees.

OPINION

BECK J.

The petition shows that plaintiff became the owner of certain lands under a sheriff's sale and deed, made upon a judgment against one of the defendants, who is now in possession of the land, and converting to his own use the crops raised upon it, which belong to plaintiff. It is alleged that defendant is insolvent and an injunction is prayed for to restrain him from further appropriation of the crops, and a decree is also prayed for giving plaintiff the possession of the land and of the crops.

The other defendant, who is the wife of the defendant against whom the judgment was rendered under which plaintiff claims title to the land, answered the petition and alleges that she is owner of the land, that it was bought with her property and that a deed was executed to her for the land by her husband. She makes her answer a cross-bill and prays that the title to the land may be quieted in her. The allegations of the pleadings need not be further recited. The case is triable de novo in this court, if it be in a condition to be tried here at all.

II. Counsel for defendants insist upon the point that the case cannot be reviewed in this court for the reason that the abstract fails to show that it presents all the evidence upon the trial in the court below. The position of defendants' counsel is well taken. The abstract does not purport to contain all the evidence upon which it was tried in the District Court; a statement to this effect is no where found. The abstract does contain a copy of the certificate of the judge, affixed to the transcript, showing that all the evidence is contained in the transcript. But it is not shown by the certificate that the abstract contains all the evidence. The certificate does not aid plaintiff. We have heretofore twice held that a copy, or a recital of the judge's certificate, is not alone sufficient to show that the abstract contains all the evidence. Overholt et al. v. Esmay et al., 54 Iowa 748, 6 N.W. 140; Cassady, Administrator, v. Spofford et al., ante, p. 237.

...